Compare StocksNVDA vs TER

NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA) vs Teradyne, Inc. (TER): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-08-03, NVDA is overvalued at $201, with a DCF intrinsic value of $163 and a margin of safety of -23%. TER is undervalued at $368, with an intrinsic value of $35698139050 and a margin of safety of 100%. Of the two, TER has the wider margin of safety.

NVDA
NVIDIA Corporation
$200.75
VS
TER
Teradyne, Inc.
$367.69

Rewards

NVDA
  • NVIDIA Corporation has maintained ROIC above 10% for 4 consecutive years, suggesting solid business economics.
  • Gross margin of 74.1% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • Free cash flow has grown at a 193.9% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
TER
  • Teradyne, Inc. has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • Teradyne, Inc. scores 72/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with roic consistency as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • PEG ratio of 0.94 suggests the stock is undervalued relative to its growth rate — paying less than 1x for each unit of earnings growth.

Risks

NVDA
  • FCF yield of 2.0% is below 3%, meaning the market is pricing in substantial future growth to justify the current price.
  • Beneish M-Score of -1.06 flags financial patterns consistent with potential earnings manipulation — warrants further investigation.
  • 28 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.
TER
  • Buybacks have been poorly timed — 3 out of 4 years involved repurchases at relatively expensive valuations.
  • Trailing P/E of 50.5x is 35% above the historical average of 37.3x — the stock trades at a premium to its own history.
  • Altman Z-Score of 1.79 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
NVDA
TER
Valuation
$96.68B
Free Cash Flow
$437.38M
1.99%
FCF Yield
N/A
30.79
Trailing P/E
50.51
15.57
Forward P/E
31.83
Quality & Moat
63.06%
ROIC
32.73%
114.29%
ROE
36.46%
74.14%
Gross Margin
59.24%
0.55
PEG Ratio
0.94
Balance Sheet Safety
Net cash
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
-0.24
Net Debt / EBITDA
-0.17
0.50%
Dividend Yield
0.14%
NVDA: 10Ties: 1TER: 0
NVDATER

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
NVDA

Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

TER

Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

$1 Retained Earnings Test

Learn more →
NVDA
$16.59
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$220.50B
Δ Market Cap
+$3.66T
Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer
TER
$0.00
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Value Destroyer
Σ Retained
$1.32B
Δ Market Cap
+$106.21
Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer

Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer

Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis

Learn more →
NVDA
46.9% Margin of Safety
Price is 46.9% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $200.75
Fair Value: $378.18
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
TER
100.0% Margin of Safety
Price is 100.0% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $367.69
Fair Value: $36075551451.13
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
NVDA

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $201?

+17.2%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +20.2%

The market implies +17.2% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.

Standard FCF implies a more demanding +20.2%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.

TER

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $368?

-30.0%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies -30.0%

The market implies -30.0% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.

Standard FCF implies a more demanding -30.0%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
NVDA
69/100
Narrow Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Narrow moat with roic consistency as the key competitive advantage. Improving revenue predictability would strengthen the moat.

Composite score measuring competitive advantage durability across four dimensions: returns above cost of capital, pricing power stability, revenue predictability, and capital efficiency. Based on 4 years of fundamental data.
TER
72/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat driven primarily by roic consistency. Revenue Predictability is the area most vulnerable to competitive pressure.

Composite score measuring competitive advantage durability across four dimensions: returns above cost of capital, pricing power stability, revenue predictability, and capital efficiency. Based on 4 years of fundamental data.

Forensic Accounting

Learn more →
NVDA
-1.06
Likely Manipulator
Above -1.78 = likely manipulator · -2.22 to -1.78 = grey zone

M-Score Trend

Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.
TER
-2.76
Unlikely Manipulator
Above -1.78 = likely manipulator · -2.22 to -1.78 = grey zone

M-Score Trend

Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.

Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.

Ownership Breakdown

Learn more →
NVDA
Insiders 4.0%Institutions 70.7%Retail & Other 25.3%
No. of Institutional Holders7,576
High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders — a key signal in Buffett-style analysis. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.
TER
Insiders 0.3%Institutions 96.2%Retail & Other 3.5%
No. of Institutional Holders1,818
High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders — a key signal in Buffett-style analysis. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.

High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.

Insider Buying Activity

Learn more →
NVDA
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
TER
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises

Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises.

Insider Selling Activity

Learn more →
NVDA
1
Sells (3M)
28
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $743.42M
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$133,750
@ $214.00 · 2026-05-27
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$942,944
@ $174.75 · 2026-03-20
SHAH AARTI S
Director
$3.36M
@ $176.71 · 2026-03-19
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$555,440
@ $184.90 · 2026-03-13
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$15.19M
@ $189.85 · 2026-01-02
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$4.43M
@ $179.98 · 2025-12-19
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$112,317
@ $179.42 · 2025-11-24
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$5.20M
@ $207.91 · 2025-10-29
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$23.56M
@ $188.47 · 2025-10-28
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.73M
@ $181.04 · 2025-10-23
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$41.06M
@ $182.48 · 2025-10-20
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$41.34M
@ $183.73 · 2025-10-15
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$42.89M
@ $190.60 · 2025-10-10
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$42.05M
@ $186.89 · 2025-10-07
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$42.09M
@ $187.08 · 2025-10-02
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.23M
@ $178.82 · 2025-09-29
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.21M
@ $178.69 · 2025-09-24
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.18M
@ $174.14 · 2025-09-19
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$617,298
@ $176.37 · 2025-09-19
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.75M
@ $176.66 · 2025-09-16
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.28M
@ $174.59 · 2025-09-11
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.01M
@ $168.95 · 2025-09-08
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.61M
@ $171.60 · 2025-09-03
HUDSON BEACH DAWN E
Director
$15.38M
@ $170.90 · 2025-09-03
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$27.12M
@ $180.79 · 2025-08-15
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.96M
@ $182.04 · 2025-08-13
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.66M
@ $180.70 · 2025-08-08
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.78M
@ $176.80 · 2025-08-05
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.18M
@ $178.58 · 2025-07-31
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.16M
@ $174.02 · 2025-07-28
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.22M
@ $169.87 · 2025-07-23
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.71M
@ $172.05 · 2025-07-18
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$37.59M
@ $167.08 · 2025-07-15
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$36.43M
@ $161.91 · 2025-07-10
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$35.55M
@ $158.02 · 2025-07-07
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$35.16M
@ $156.27 · 2025-07-01
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$30.47M
@ $152.33 · 2025-06-26
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$14.40M
@ $144.04 · 2025-06-23
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$646,469
@ $143.66 · 2025-06-20
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$91,608
@ $138.80 · 2025-05-30
BURGESS ROBERT KENNETH
Director
$6.74M
@ $134.82 · 2025-05-30
KRESS COLETTE M.
Chief Financial Officer
$7.79M
@ $116.83 · 2025-03-21
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$525,585
@ $116.80 · 2025-03-21
SHAH AARTI S
Director
$2.37M
@ $118.42 · 2025-03-20
BURGESS ROBERT KENNETH
Director
$6.16M
@ $115.49 · 2025-03-13
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$292,930
@ $110.00 · 2025-03-10
KRESS COLETTE M.
Chief Financial Officer
$9.03M
@ $135.40 · 2024-12-13
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$608,775
@ $135.28 · 2024-12-13
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
TER
11
Sells (3M)
29
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $10.62M
MATZ MARILYN
Director
$427,572
@ $356.31 · 2026-07-15
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$1.43M
@ $356.31 · 2026-07-15
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$76,820
@ $460.00 · 2026-07-01
MATZ MARILYN
Director
$507,636
@ $423.03 · 2026-06-15
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$1.69M
@ $423.03 · 2026-06-15
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$61,747
@ $369.74 · 2026-06-02
POULIN SHANNON JOHN
Officer
$581,013
@ $349.17 · 2026-05-22
MATZ MARILYN
Director
$140,000
@ $350.00 · 2026-05-21
MATZ MARILYN
Director
$271,184
@ $338.98 · 2026-05-15
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.91M
@ $338.98 · 2026-05-15
DRISCOLL RYAN E
General Counsel
$256,768
@ $377.60 · 2026-05-07
MILLS REGAN
Officer
$5,475
@ $342.19 · 2026-04-08
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$195,125
@ $312.20 · 2026-04-06
MILLS REGAN
Officer
$73,302
@ $290.88 · 2026-04-02
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$187,000
@ $299.20 · 2026-03-05
MILLS REGAN
Officer
$262,302
@ $332.87 · 2026-02-25
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$166,862
@ $266.98 · 2026-02-05
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$132,406
@ $211.85 · 2026-01-05
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$223,051
@ $201.31 · 2025-12-12
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$125,000
@ $200.00 · 2025-12-05
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$199,662
@ $180.20 · 2025-11-12
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$110,656
@ $177.05 · 2025-11-05
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$160,926
@ $145.24 · 2025-10-10
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$92,438
@ $147.90 · 2025-10-06
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$70,020
@ $126.39 · 2025-09-22
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$63,710
@ $115.00 · 2025-09-12
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$75,038
@ $120.06 · 2025-09-05
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$58,724
@ $106.00 · 2025-08-12
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$66,250
@ $106.00 · 2025-08-05
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$58,574
@ $105.73 · 2025-07-30
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$198,244
@ $105.73 · 2025-07-30
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$69,350
@ $110.96 · 2025-03-03
MEHTA SANJAY
Chief Financial Officer
$154,302
@ $111.49 · 2025-02-04
DRISCOLL RYAN E
General Counsel
$24,082
@ $111.49 · 2025-02-04
BURNS RICHARD JOHN
Officer
$49,613
@ $111.49 · 2025-02-04
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$70,362
@ $112.58 · 2025-02-03
MEHTA SANJAY
Chief Financial Officer
$62,628
@ $102.00 · 2025-01-30
DRISCOLL RYAN E
Officer
$44,574
@ $102.00 · 2025-01-30
MEHTA SANJAY
Chief Financial Officer
$656,040
@ $122.90 · 2025-01-29
DRISCOLL RYAN E
General Counsel
$9,340
@ $122.89 · 2025-01-29
BURNS RICHARD JOHN
Officer
$181,523
@ $122.90 · 2025-01-29
MEHTA SANJAY
Chief Financial Officer
$215,592
@ $120.51 · 2025-01-28
DRISCOLL RYAN E
General Counsel
$12,895
@ $120.51 · 2025-01-28
BURNS RICHARD JOHN
Officer
$49,048
@ $120.51 · 2025-01-28
BURNS RICHARD JOHN
Officer
$49,048
@ $120.51 · 2025-01-28
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$400,400
@ $130.00 · 2025-01-03
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$79,225
@ $126.76 · 2025-01-02
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$400,400
@ $130.00 · 2024-12-16
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$68,775
@ $110.04 · 2024-12-02
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$69,638
@ $111.42 · 2024-11-07
BURNS RICHARD JOHN
Officer
$129,548
@ $132.19 · 2024-10-02
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$409,024
@ $132.80 · 2024-10-01
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$83,000
@ $132.80 · 2024-10-01
SMITH GREGORY STEPHEN
Chief Executive Officer
$400,400
@ $130.00 · 2024-09-11
JOHNSON MERCEDES
Director
$83,431
@ $133.49 · 2024-09-03
MEHTA SANJAY
Chief Financial Officer
$818,718
@ $133.06 · 2024-08-20
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives

Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives.

🎭 Mr. Market's Mood

Learn more →
NVDA
FearGreed
😐Neutral(51/100)

"Market is pricing this stock without strong emotion in either direction"

Composite sentiment score based on 6 market signals. Inspired by Buffett's "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.
TER
FearGreed
😐Neutral(47/100)

"Market is pricing this stock without strong emotion in either direction"

Composite sentiment score based on 6 market signals. Inspired by Buffett's "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.

Composite sentiment score based on market signals. Inspired by Buffett’s "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.

⚖️ Buffett Signal

Learn more →
NVDA
Awaiting DCF Data

The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.

DCF Margin of Safety: N/AMr. Market's Mood: Neutral (51)
TER
Awaiting DCF Data

The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.

DCF Margin of Safety: N/AMr. Market's Mood: Neutral (47)
View NVDA Full AnalysisView TER Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: NVDA vs TER

Is NVIDIA Corporation or Teradyne, Inc. more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, TER trades at a 100.0% margin of safety (intrinsic value $35698139050 vs. price $368), compared to NVDA's -22.9% margin of safety (intrinsic $163 vs. $201).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, NVIDIA Corporation or Teradyne, Inc.?

TER scores 72/100 (Wide moat), while NVDA scores 69/100 (Narrow moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Teradyne, Inc. in financial distress?

TER's Altman Z-Score of 1.8 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. NVDA scores 4.7 (Safe zone). The Altman Z-Score is a five-factor model that predicts insolvency within two years; scores below 1.81 indicate significant distress.

Which stock has higher return on invested capital, NVIDIA Corporation or Teradyne, Inc.?

NVDA earns 63.1% ROIC versus TER's 32.7%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.

Which dividend is safer, NVIDIA Corporation's or Teradyne, Inc.'s?

NVDA's dividend earns a safety score of 91/100 (Very Safe), compared to TER's 85/100 (Very Safe). NVDA has raised its dividend for 2 consecutive years.

Does NVIDIA Corporation have accounting red flags?

NVDA's Beneish M-Score of -1.1 flags it as a likely earnings manipulator (above the -1.78 threshold). By contrast, TER scores -2.8, within the normal range. The Beneish model detects aggressive accounting through eight financial ratios.